The answer that intrinsic width and height of a region should be zero is based on the premise that there is no intrinsic size or ratio to use (qualification - I am only talking about regions that are part of a chain of regions).
The same reasoning when applied to replaced elements (like images) led to an choice of arbitrary default size of 300x150.
I think the first question to answer here is - are regions more like regular blocks or more like replaced?
Hyatt's logic is attractive because it if a region is a regular block, same sizing logic applies to any kinds of regions (chained or not). My concern is that 0 is not a useful default.
If regions are more like replaced however, "auto" width will become 300px, which is different from normal box model, which will either mean that auto sizing is less convenient, or that the 300px default kicks in a different point in box model calculations and we’ll have a new unique sizing algorithm.
Ideas? I can live with any of the above. I think I would prefer just consider linked regions just "replaced", because
1) replaced block sizing is well defined
2) unsized linked regions can only happen by mistake
3) default non-zero size is more useful for fixing those mistakes
Alex
± -----Original Message-----
± From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf
± Of Edward O'Connor
± Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 1:24 PM
± To: www-style@w3.org
± Subject: Re: region intrinsic size and aspect ratio
±
± Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
±
± > Since making something a region (setting ‘flow-from’) takes over the
± > element’s content, it should be reasonable to expect that intrinsic
± > size of the region is calculated similar to that of a replaced element
± > or iframe. Unless of course it is a situation where region is sized to
± > content.
± >
± > That means that default region size is 300px by 150px, and if either
± > width or height is not specified it gets its respective intrinsic
± > value (because region does not have an intrinsic aspect ratio).
±
± When this came up before, Hyatt proposed[1] and Vincent agreed[2] that the
± intrinsic size of a region should be 0.
±
±
± Ted
±
± 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011May/0293.html
± 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011May/0302.html